Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[ABC10]

I find it hard to believe you're not trolling.

Of course not. We are having a discussion here about penises - circumcised and uncircumcised. Men are so proud of their ding dong, but don't realize there is a difference in appearance of the two. Instead of a final droop of skin that is unattractive instead of a robust tip. Having a different opinion is not trolling but a difference of opinion on, of all things, a discussion debate board.

 

[ABC10]

Unappealing to you, maybe. Aesthetics and personal choice are not good reasons to continue with non-consensual surgery on infants.

In the UK where the norm is not to circumcise infants, I have only known [in the Biblical sense ] one man who was cut. He regretted it, not least because it set him apart from his mates at school who were not cut.

None of my three sons has been circumcised, and while it's not a subject I particularly discuss with their partners, they really don't seem to find my sons unappealing.

It's a simple little procedure not "surgery" and the babies don't get a vote.

 

[Ryokan]

It's a simple little procedure not "surgery" and the babies don't get a vote.

Didn't you say you were a nurse? Of course it's surgery.

Male circumcision (from Latin circumcidere, meaning "to cut around") is the surgical removal of the foreskin (prepuce) from the human penis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

circumcision (ˌsɜːkəmˈsɪʒən)
— n
1. a. surgical removal of the foreskin of males

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcision?s=t

 

[kellyb]

It's a simple little procedure not "surgery"

Wrong.

Additionally, around one in 10 to one in 20 boys will need a second corrective "procedure" in later childhood to fix a problem the infant circumcision caused.

 

[Rolfe]

As a vet, the whole idea revolts me, because if we were doing that to animals there would be a far bigger outcry against it. We've even stopped people cutting the tails off newborn puppies because the historical reasons for doing it were sophistry and it was actually just fashion and appearance.

The prepuce provides a hugely important function in protecting the delicate tissues of the penis itself. If people want to have this done to themselves, then be my guest, but doing that to a baby that can't consent and may be very upset about it in later life should be absolutely unthinkable in any modern society.

Rolfe.

 

[Rat]

Of course not. We are having a discussion here about penises - circumcised and uncircumcised. Men are so proud of their ding dong, but don't realize there is a difference in appearance of the two. Instead of a final droop of skin that is unattractive instead of a robust tip. Having a different opinion is not trolling but a difference of opinion on, of all things, a discussion debate board.

Unattractive to you. It is indeed your opinion, and nothing else, formed largely by what's standard in your country. And of course men realize there is a difference; for one thing, I would wager that most men have seen porn, and a lot of porn is made in the US.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

As a vet, the whole idea revolts me, because if we were doing that to animals there would be a far bigger outcry against it. We've even stopped people cutting the tails off newborn puppies because the historical reasons for doing it were sophistry and it was actually just fashion and appearance.

The prepuce provides a hugely important function in protecting the delicate tissues of the penis itself. If people want to have this done to themselves, then be my guest, but doing that to a baby that can't consent and may be very upset about it in later life should be absolutely unthinkable in any modern society.

Rolfe.

Unfortunately, in the US there are no animal restrictions. I had an internship at a clinic that did "elective surgeries" and it is crazy watching them recover compared to the animals that had normal medical treatments.

So at least we don't treat kids more like property than the animals?

 

[colander]

Don't count your baby dicks just yet. Circumcision bans have been proposed in many countries, but I can't think of any cases where they actually managed to stick. One was leveled in Germany last year, but parliament pretty handily passed a bill that re-legalized it, citing the preservation of religious freedom as their justification.

 

[Rat]

Don't count your baby dicks just yet. Circumcision bans have been proposed in many countries, but I can't think of any cases where they actually managed to stick. One was leveled in Germany last year, but parliament pretty handily passed a bill that re-legalized it, citing the preservation of religious freedom as their justification.

And this is why they always fail, but I'm not sure why. I'm moderately surprised that Sikhs manage to avoid the crash helmet laws (although I don't think I've ever seen a Sikh on a motorcycle), but Rastafari is arguably a religion, and they get no pass on the marijuana laws.

 

[CORed]

...
First it was to stop boys from masturbating
...

If that's why it was done to me, it failed miserably.

 

[The Big Dog]

We should definitely ban nontherapeutic sexual genital mutilation of boys and girls.

I predict that the pædophiles will jump on this thread and decry the loss of their right to sexually assault and mutilate their children. The perverts will undoubtedly claim that it is their right under religion. With that argument, members of the Ku Klux Klan (an organization only accepting evangelical white christians) can lynch all of the nonevangelical nonwhite nonchristians they want, if they claim that lynching nonevangelical nonwhite nonchristians is a tenet of their religion:

If we allowing religious exemptions for sexual assault and mutilation, then many violent convicted felons in prison will claim that sexually assaulting people is part of their religion. We would have to release them. If we do not, we would be hypocrites.

is this parody?

 

[Rolfe]

On past form, I fear not.

Rolfe.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Of course not. We are having a discussion here about penises - circumcised and uncircumcised. Men are so proud of their ding dong, but don't realize there is a difference in appearance of the two. Instead of a final droop of skin that is unattractive instead of a robust tip. Having a different opinion is not trolling but a difference of opinion on, of all things, a discussion debate board.

Unattractive to you. It is indeed your opinion, and nothing else, formed largely by what's standard in your country. And of course men realize there is a difference; for one thing, I would wager that most men have seen porn, and a lot of porn is made in the US.

This comes up a lot in circumcision debates and always confuses me. Apart from the odd occasion of aesthetic contemplation of the male form and during visits to the doctor I would have thought that the majority of looking at penises happens when they are erect, and in that condition it isn't easy to distinguish between cut and uncut.

Certainly if you watch porn closely (I was told, obviously I haven't done it myself, ahem) there are a significant number of uncircumcised male performers, so it doesn't seem to be a career bar even in the US.

 

[catsmate]

It's a simple little procedure not "surgery" and the babies don't get a vote.

You claim to be a nurse an don't recognise surgery?
Why don't the infants get a say? A procedure without medical benefits or justification....

As a vet, the whole idea revolts me, because if we were doing that to animals there would be a far bigger outcry against it. We've even stopped people cutting the tails off newborn puppies because the historical reasons for doing it were sophistry and it was actually just fashion and appearance.

Because as a society we often care more about our pets than other humans. I'm reminded of the BSE scare and the removal of potentially suspect meat from the petfood chain long before it was eliminated from the human food chain.

The prepuce provides a hugely important function in protecting the delicate tissues of the penis itself. If people want to have this done to themselves, then be my guest, but doing that to a baby that can't consent and may be very upset about it in later life should be absolutely unthinkable in any modern society.

Yes.

Don't count your baby dicks just yet. Circumcision bans have been proposed in many countries, but I can't think of any cases where they actually managed to stick. One was leveled in Germany last year, but parliament pretty handily passed a bill that re-legalized it, citing the preservation of religious freedom as their justification.

The Nordics are less susceptible to pressure from the Jewish lobby.

If that's why it was done to me, it failed miserably.

Very few anti-masturbation measures work. Maybe Kellogg's spiked chastity belts.....

This comes up a lot in circumcision debates and always confuses me. Apart from the odd occasion of aesthetic contemplation of the male form and during visits to the doctor I would have thought that the majority of looking at penises happens when they are erect, and in that condition it isn't easy to distinguish between cut and uncut.

Certainly if you watch porn closely (I was told, obviously I haven't done it myself, ahem) there are a significant number of uncircumcised male performers, so it doesn't seem to be a career bar even in the US.

Hmm, that's a potentially interesting argument; you should be circumcised in case you decide on a career in porn.
Maybe we'll do some research this weekend.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm reminded of the BSE scare and the removal of potentially suspect meat from the petfood chain long before it was eliminated from the human food chain.

That's absolutely true, but bear in mind that was a unilateral and voluntary removal done by the pet food companies themselves. It wasn't forced on them by legislation.

It's hard to say whether they were motivated purely by concern for the pets, or by concern that they could be sued into oblivion if it was later shown that their product had caused a prion disease in animals that had eaten it. (Bear in mind that dogs and cats often live exclusively on one company's product for years.)

Sorry, this is going off topic.

Rolfe.

 

[sgtbaker]

Ever see an uncircumcised penis?? UGH!

Yeah, it looked a bit different than what I was used to but there's nothing remarkable about it; certainly not worth a jaw drop.

I am talking entirely about the foreskin, not his penis.

 

[catsmate]

That's absolutely true, but bear in mind that was a unilateral and voluntary removal done by the pet food companies themselves. It wasn't forced on them by legislation.

It's hard to say whether they were motivated purely by concern for the pets, or by concern that they could be sued into oblivion if it was later shown that their product had caused a prion disease in animals that had eaten it. (Bear in mind that dogs and cats often live exclusively on one company's product for years.)

Exactly. The scenario that faced the pet food manufacturers was that a jury (of "ordinary people") would value the loss of a pet more than a human.

Sorry, this is going off topic.

Meh, that's hardly unusual.

OK, back the male genital mutilation.

 

[Rolfe]

Exactly. The scenario that faced the pet food manufacturers was that a jury (of "ordinary people") would value the loss of a pet more than a human.

I think it was a question of liability. The human diet is so varied and comes from such varied sources that no one supplier could possibly be found to be liable for an individual death. Thus, individual suppliers were not motivated to take anything off the market in advance of legislation compelling them to do that.

Lots of cats eat nothing but the products of a single pet food company for all or a large proportion of their lives. Hello, class action lawsuit.

Meh, that's hardly unusual.

OK, back the male genital mutilation.

Indeed. We're getting side-tracked.

Rolfe.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Perhaps the babies should be given guns so that they may defend themselves.

/continuing the current social issues trend

 

[ABC10]

You claim to be a nurse an don't recognise surgery?
Why don't the infants get a say? A procedure without medical benefits or justification....


Because as a society we often care more about our pets than other humans. I'm reminded of the BSE scare and the removal of potentially suspect meat from the petfood chain long before it was eliminated from the human food chain.


Yes.


The Nordics are less susceptible to pressure from the Jewish lobby.


Very few anti-masturbation measures work. Maybe Kellogg's spiked chastity belts.....


Hmm, that's a potentially interesting argument; you should be circumcised in case you decide on a career in porn.
Maybe we'll do some research this weekend.

Perhaps so, but the Nordics are very susceptible to pressure from the Muslim lobby who also circumcise males and sometimes females. The Nordics are so taken with Circumcising Muslims that they invited them into their country to live with interesting results.
It is interesting that the males who sell SEX in porn are circumcised.